logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가합104723
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The New Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Bank”) filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the Seoul Southern District Court, around December 2015, as a mortgagee on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 18, 2015, the said court rendered a decision to commence auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on December 18, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company specialized in asset-backed securitization under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, which acquired credit against B and collateral-backed security on the instant real estate from a new bank.

C. On May 3, 2016, at the auction procedure of this case, the Defendant reported the right of retention that the Defendant has a lien of KRW 1,506,181,000 as preserved right, with the following contents as to the instant real estate at the auction court.

D D 【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s principal cannot be found to have actually performed any construction work solely based on the quotation, which serves as the basis for the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction price to the instant real estate cited as the basis for the establishment of the right of retention. Moreover, since the contract is not written by the Defendant as a party, it is difficult to deem that such obligation for construction price exists, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant actually occupied the instant real estate. Therefore

The plaintiff is a transferee of the right to collateral security against the real estate of this case, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of a lien by the defendant who reported the right to collateral security in the auction procedure of this case for exercising the security right.

B. The defendant's summary

arrow